Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

His remarks are "based on a public lecture that the author presented to students interested in issues of campus free speech":

"First, you have to understand that educational policy is consumed by the achievement gap, which is the disparity between groups of students on most educational measures...I don't just mean that this is the number one priority. It's the only priority...Nothing else matters. No Child Left Behind was entirely about the achievement gap and measuring schools to see if they'd closed it. Obama's Race to the Top is just another take...again, focusing on testing and this time holding teachers responsible if they can't get low-performing students to improve."

And, second, you have to understand that, in ed-school, there's only one permissible take on "the achievement gap, its cause and solution" - i.e., "the progressive view...which holds that social injustice, institutionalized racism, white prejudice, and other societal ills cause the achievement gap." Express any doubt on that point - even to the rather timid extent of suggesting, along with those horrid right-wing extremists, the Thernstroms, that differing cultural values may play some role here - and the sociopaths who run the place will do everything in their power to destroy you. Fortunately, in the author's case, they didn't quite succeed (though they did frighten him into anonymity).

So what do our progressive educational overlords really want? They "want to fix the achievement gap by moving underachieving students closer to high-achieving students...who will model desirable behavior..." I.e., for these people, unless your child is an underperforming member of one of the officially approved minorities, they really couldn't care less about what's best for him. So far as they're concerned, his only use is to sit next to the previously mentioned under-achievers in class and to "model desirable behavior" for them. And if, instead, it's the bad habits of the underachievers that end up rubbing off on the better students? No problem. There's more than one way to reduce an achievement gap.

Comments (34)

Steve,

I know Kurt Vonnegut was a goofy leftist who probably believed in the "achievement gap, its cause and solution" and yet didn't he write the sci-fi short story in which in a dystopian future the rulers force the talented runners, singers, thinkers, to go through life with some sort of disabling device that brings their ability down to the level of the masses (e.g. the runner has weights on his legs, the singer has a device in his mouth distorting his voice, etc.) Sometimes our science fiction writers can be eerie in their predictions about the future.

The aspect of the situation that has struck me most forcefully, in the discussion of education policy, is the impulse to sanction teachers for - essentially - the ill fortune of having been given a classroom full of the below-average. So, for example, the system is prepared to "hold accountable" a teacher who fails to conform a kid with a 90 IQ to the official math standards, which mandate proficiency in algebra.

It's long been a conservative trope to blame teachers for everything that's wrong with American education, and to imagine that if only we could smash the teacher's unions things would get better.

They're wrong about that. In my experience (and I have quite a bit of relevant experience) the vast majority of teachers are good people who are trying to do their best under the circumstances. But the circumstances are often pretty awful.

Jeff Singer -- yes, indeed -- it's "Harrison Bergeron" and I love to teach it whenever I can. The students are very quick to pick up on the many, many ways we actually do try to dumb everyone down to the same standards, so no one's feelings will ever be hurt. Fantastic story!

It depends on what you mean by "better", when you say: "It's long been a conservative trope...smash the teacher's unions things would get better."

Would our kids suddenly be transformed into little Einsteins? Obviously no. But would there suddenly be flexibility to fire bad teachers, reward good ones, slash lavish pensions and benefits, set up schools with innovative curriculums, etc., etc. Then the answer would obviously be, things can definitely get much better.

The unions have lobbying power, too, Steve, and we know what side that's on vis a vis the things you discuss in the main post. My impression is that, to put it mildly, the teachers' unions are even opposed to charter schools, which by anecdotal evidence are at least somewhat better educationally and in terms of keeping order, etc., than regular public schools. So there's more point to anti-teachers'-union talk among conservatives than just some sort of simple-minded and uninformed, "Those darned fat-cat teachers are doing a lousy job and getting overpaid."

"Express any doubt on that point - even to the rather timid extent of suggesting, along with those horrid right-wing extremists, the Thernstroms, that differing cultural values may play some role here - and the sociopaths who run the place will do everything in their power to destroy you."

I've found the teachers I know are quite conscious of the problems of bad, uninvolved parents. They tend not to generalize to the level of culture, however.

Yet I don't recall any figure in the newspapers blaming the parents. I'm pretty sure it came up in a recent Colorado debate over linking teacher performance to tenure.

It often seems to me that the perennial "uninvolved parent" complaint is an attempt to protect failed education policies and fads--e.g., the abandonment of phonics in teaching reading. Teachers are often indeed good and sincere people, but it doesn't follow that the strategies they have been taught for teaching Johnny are good ones. It's not as though most teachers are overjoyed when a parent gets "involved" in the sense of seriously questioning a trendy educational approach. That's not the kind of involvement that's wanted. "Make your kid do the homework I assign, be in the parent-teacher association, do the activities we make up for you to do, and shut up" is more like it.

It often seems to me that the perennial "uninvolved parent" complaint is an attempt to protect failed education policies and fads--e.g., the abandonment of phonics in teaching reading.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Based solely on my own observations over the years, vast swathes of the lower and middle classes simply are not interested in the details of the education of their children - except when little Johnny acts out in school, and is disciplined for behaving like a little savage. Then, the parents take an interest in the process, and defend the imp. Generally speaking, the further left one moves along the bell curve, the greater the consequences of parental uninvolvement. Strict parents of below-average endowments, with children of like endowments, might be able to get children to scrape through with Cs and Ds, but those parents, uninvolved, will likely have children who fail outright, and act in in other ways.

As for the idea that public school teachers are lavishly and unjustifiably compensated, well, to a certain extent, you get what you pay for other things being equal. I've been in, and around, private schools where teachers were paid 12K per annum. They weren't better than the below-average public schools. It's funny how, for some folks, the incentives argument applies to entrepreneurs and speculators, but ceases to apply when we're talking about educators. Enough to make it worthwhile, but not too much, I say.

Maximos writes: "Generally speaking, the further left one moves along the bell curve, the greater the consequences of parental uninvolvement. Strict parents of below-average endowments, with children of like endowments, might be able to get children to scrape through with Cs and Ds, but those parents, uninvolved, will likely have children who fail outright, and act [out] in other ways."

At this point, in this economy, private high schools and perhaps even private grade schools could hire unemployed philosophy PhDs for bargain-basement prices, especially if they could assure them that (since they are private schools and can expel chronic misbehavors) the teaching environment will be a good one. If the people hired were analytic philosophers :-), the schools might get a very good deal indeed.

I believe in the incentives argument in the education realm, you bet. I would just like to see it allowed to work in a natural way. I think it might be interesting to see the results.

That's not the kind of involvement that's wanted. "Make your kid do the homework I assign, be in the parent-teacher association, do the activities we make up for you to do, and shut up" is more like it.

There's more truth there than I care to admit.

As for the idea that public school teachers are lavishly and unjustifiably compensated, well, to a certain extent, you get what you pay for other things being equal. I've been in, and around, private schools where teachers were paid 12K per annum. They weren't better than the below-average public schools.

While I can't confess to be a convert yet, the idea of pay being more an indicator of social status rather than merit has a lot going for it. It is difficult to make comparisons because the school that pays its teachers $12K likely also doesn't have a well endowed library, etc.

No Child Left Behind was entirely about the achievement gap and measuring schools to see if they'd closed it.
This wasn't a secret. I'm not sure why it is being treated as revelatory.

And if, instead, it's the bad habits of the underachievers that end up rubbing off on the better students? No problem. There's more than one way to reduce an achievement gap.

That's just plain cynical. There are honest policy differences in where to direct scarce education resources. The bottom 20%, the middle 60%, or the top 20% are targeted by various policies and preferred at different times in history. There are trade-offs involved in focusing on any one demographic. If one believes it better policy to devote more resources toward the top 20%, then one should just say it. Understand there will be policy consequences for doing so.

That's just plain cynical. There are honest policy differences in where to direct scarce education resources.

I wouldn't call it cynical. I would call it realistic. Just recently a school in CA was talking about getting rid of AP science because not enough minorities took the class. And I wouldn't call education resources scarce. Compared to the rest of the world, they're lavish.

There are good reasons to get rid of AP classes. They aren't a good approximation of college level work. They are increasingly not accepted for college level work unless the student scores a 5. That standard used to be a 4.

Maximos says: "It's funny how, for some folks, the incentives argument applies to entrepreneurs and speculators, but ceases to apply when we're talking about educators."

As the guy who thinks the teacher's unions are basically morally bankrupt and hammers on and on about public school teachers "being lavishly and unjustifiably compensated", I want to also clarify that I'm a big believer in incentives. Which is why the unions freak out every time the subject of merit pay comes up, or getting rid of tenure, etc. In short, set up a system that rewards good teachers and allows schools to fire bad teachers (or pay less to teachers who are just average). And yes, you have to judge a teacher's ability based on what he or she is working with (i.e. a teacher teaching kids from minority broken homes won't turn the kids into little Einsteins in one year).

Which is why the unions freak out every time the subject of merit pay comes up,

Amen. Anybody who thinks unions are all about incentives to do a good job is shockingly naive.

M.Z. I don't know about some sort of national trend to demand a 5 for A.P. credit, but that isn't what my local Big State University does. It demands a 3, which actually was the norm for a long time. And the AP prep book my daughter was just working with also implied that a 3 is a common score demanded for credit.

I'm relishing the irony of the fact that I am, in this thread, defending a form of the incentives argument, despite finding the common forms of the argument, in our political discourse, to be rubbish. It was rubbish when it was argued that the Clinton-era increase in marginal tax rates would decimate the economy, eliminate the incentive to innovate and create, and impoverish us all. It is rubbish when it is argued that entrepreneurs with wonderful ideas will proceed with them if they can retain 65 cents of every dollar of profit, but not if they can only retain 61 cents of every dollar of profit.

However, in the case of education policy, the incentives argument possesses some validity.

At this point, in this economy, private high schools and perhaps even private grade schools could hire unemployed philosophy PhDs for bargain-basement prices...

Certainly, schools could well do precisely this, and benefit by it - but only in this economy. There is no reason to believe that highly-educated people will be willing to work for a few coins in the tip jar once the economy recovers. More broadly, the sociological context of these discussions holds a certain fascination: whenever the subject is education, we always hear the argument that teachers, whatever their educational backgrounds and CVs, should be willing to work for less, less, less, always less; but this sentiment of veiled ressentiment is never applied universally, to all classes of professionals and forms of employment. Far from it. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is always a few select groups of the middle class, and the working poor, who are targeted with this "they should work for less, even if 'less' means a few piles of dog excrement" sort of rhetoric. Suggests tha some bankers should work for less, or that some Wall Street quants, busily engineering financial weapons of mass destruction, should work for less, and the "communist" accusation is hauled out of mothballs.

Are there instances where educational processes and outcomes could be improved by hiring outside the warrens of those with Ed degrees? Of course, and this should be encouraged, by statute if necessary. Existing salary structures have little to do with this, except insofar as paring them to the bone will dis-incentivize those qualified outsiders - and many insiders - from seeking such employment.

While I can't confess to be a convert yet, the idea of pay being more an indicator of social status rather than merit has a lot going for it. It is difficult to make comparisons because the school that pays its teachers $12K likely also doesn't have a well endowed library, etc

The idea does have a lot to recommend it. The problem is that this is true throughout the entirety of the economic structure. It's not unique to education, and because this sort of positional striving is well-nigh universal, it makes no sense to target one group in particular.

For the record, the library wasn't half-bad. Many of the parents were wealthy, or at least firmly ensconced in the upper reaches of the middle class, and could afford to purchase and donate materials. They just thought that teachers weren't worth paying, regardless of merit.

Which is why the unions freak out every time the subject of merit pay comes up, or getting rid of tenure

They should freak out, for the most part, because it is insane, sadistic, and immoral to hold teachers accountable for failing to educate the ineducable. Where impossibility is, there responsibility is not. We have the indescribable conjunction of two policy views: first, that teachers generally earn too much, and second, that merit pay is a wonderful idea. Teachers should be paid less, but their earnings should be contingent upon factors a majority of which are beyond their control. And this is where the incentives argument returns: perhaps teachers should be paid more to achieve whatever can be achieved with respect to the ineducable; and unless we're going to rigidly segregate children by IQ - something I'd oppose, if it meant something more exacting than the 'gifted child' programmes that already exist in some places (softer forms are the way to go, here) - most teachers will have to be compensated for dealing with the marginally educable. Do you want a social hierarchy rigidly and obviously based on IQ testing, or do you want to pay teachers?

Do you want a social hierarchy rigidly and obviously based on IQ testing, or do you want to pay teachers?

In the old days, people used to come to sit at the feet of a teacher to learn. Now, they want to be taught while standing on one foot. The onus is on the student, primarily, to be a good student. What defines a good student has been slipping. A good student is not a mocking student, a proud student, a complaint-driven student. Good students can create good teachers. The opposite, sadly, is no longer true. Even Jesus could only work a few miracles where there was no faith. I wonder if there is a correlation between the loss of faith in the modern world and the deterioration of the student-teacher relationship.

They should freak out, for the most part, because it is insane, sadistic, and immoral to hold teachers accountable for failing to educate the ineducable.

Please, Maximos. Are you implying that the unions would not freak out if a reasonable measure of merit were used instead? You cannot believe anything so silly. Or are you implying that there is no reasonable way to tell that some teachers are especially meritorious and deserving of special reward? That, too, is obviously untrue.

Um, maybe the reason that some of us don't respond positively to your suggestion that bankers "should" work for less is because you and your ilk are usually suggesting that the government make them work for less.

I'm certainly not suggesting governmental caps on teacher compensation! Far, far from it. So the parallel is very, very poor. Neither am I suggesting that there is some absolute moral requirement that this or that person (of any class of society) "should" work for less. What I would say is that they should not have the right to use coercion, backed by the government, to _require_ that they be paid no less than x.

In other words, I oppose both government-required caps and floors.

Cue disquisition on how really, employers have too much power, so not having government-enforced union negotiating power is really just the same as or morally equivalent to a government-enforced cap on the wages of the poor proles. But perhaps we could take that as read.

It often seems to me that the perennial "uninvolved parent" complaint is an attempt to protect failed education policies and fads--e.g., the abandonment of phonics in teaching reading. Teachers are often indeed good and sincere people, but it doesn't follow that the strategies they have been taught for teaching Johnny are good ones. It's not as though most teachers are overjoyed when a parent gets "involved" in the sense of seriously questioning a trendy educational approach. That's not the kind of involvement that's wanted. "Make your kid do the homework I assign, be in the parent-teacher association, do the activities we make up for you to do, and shut up" is more like it.

Speaking for my late mom, this was not the case. What she wanted from parents was discipline. The kids (third graders) weren't coming to school prepared to learn, and didn't value education.

She had a student who was always extremely well-dressed and had toys the other kids coveted. He also wrote stories about the family dogs: Cocaine and Reefer.

What the heck is a teacher supposed to do when the kids come from an environment like that? All the accountability and incentives in the world won't make the kids learn.

Are you implying that the unions would not freak out if a reasonable measure of merit were used instead?

Assuming that some reasonable conception of merit exists - and recall that I have endorsed the dismissal of the manifestly incompetent - I have implied no such thing, inasmuch as it is not at issue in present controversies over merit pay; the context of all of those discussions is the culturalist belief in human genetic uniformity, that all children are innately equal andcapable of learning just about anything, if only they would be placed in the requisite environments. In the context of this widespread denial of innate human differentiation, the advocacy of merit pay is essentially advocacy of punishing teachers for the misfortune of being placed in classrooms full of the ineducable. That is injustice, and people should freak out about it. Now, if we had a sane recognition of innate human differences, perhaps we could elaborate a reasonable conception of merit, applying it to educational policy. But that's not what merit pay is all about in the present circumstances; what it is about is finding scapegoats for the failure of the below-average, who were destined to perform more or less below the average, whose below-averageness we are not allowed to admit in polite conversation.

Um, maybe the reason that some of us don't respond positively to your suggestion that bankers "should" work for less is because you and your ilk are usually suggesting that the government make them work for less.

Have we finished stamping out the embers of the straw man yet? Good. What I have advocated is only that corporate governance law be reformed, and that the perverse incentive structures of finance capitalism be reformed, by tying executive compensation to long-term performance, and including clawback provisions for risky and speculative ventures that yield medium and long-term losses. Now, that would entail alterations in the law, and some sophist will surely arise in the comments to point out that legislative redress of the matter would constitute "government making them work for less", never mind that reform of the structures is not identical with the imposition of a cap on the quantities they yield. But hey, whatever it takes if one is to continue believing that government is the only source of incompetence, corruption, and villainy.

Cue disquisition on how really, employers have too much power, so not having government-enforced union negotiating power is really just the same as or morally equivalent to a government-enforced cap on the wages of the poor proles. But perhaps we could take that as read.

No, I won't uncork such a disquisition. I'll only observe that it is absurd to demonize that form of collective economic arrangements called a "union" while ignoring that collective economic arrangement called a "corporation"; apparently, collective organization to secure the advantages of incorporation - tax treatment, liability limitation, capital accumulation - is wonderful, but collective organization to secure a better wage is bestial.

For the record, you don't have to "take anything as read", in the sense of imputing to me things I have not explicitly avowed, or even obviously implied, because I'm not writing esoterically, and because this sort of reading between the lines, with the object of divining my mental states, or my beliefs beyond what I've openly stated, is so un-analytical.

As for merit pay, let me just say: These things also apply at the college level (where there are also unions), and I can speak from experience to the effect that it is _not_ true that merit pay for college educators is tied (at least not in the fully-politically-correct state institution I'm familiar with) to their ability to educate minorities to the same status as other students. I'm sure the administrators would like that, but there are plenty of other ways to get merit pay when there is merit pay, which there hasn't been for several years now.

I don't totally want to take over Steve's blog post on the subject of merit pay, but since he hasn't stepped in to stop us yet, I will take one more stab at your strange response to me. You say the following:

However, in the case of education policy, the incentives argument possesses some validity.

But then go on to claim, in response to my observation that generally teacher's unions oppose efforts (they "freak out") to introduce merit pay that:

They should freak out, for the most part, because it is insane, sadistic, and immoral to hold teachers accountable for failing to educate the ineducable. Where impossibility is, there responsibility is not.

When Lydia suggests that there are in fact reasonable measures of merit, you go on to suggest:

Assuming that some reasonable conception of merit exists - and recall that I have endorsed the dismissal of the manifestly incompetent - I have implied no such thing, inasmuch as it is not at issue in present controversies over merit pay; the context of all of those discussions is the culturalist belief in human genetic uniformity, that all children are innately equal andcapable of learning just about anything, if only they would be placed in the requisite environments. In the context of this widespread denial of innate human differentiation, the advocacy of merit pay is essentially advocacy of punishing teachers for the misfortune of being placed in classrooms full of the ineducable.

Now I can't speak for every single school district across the nation, but the places I am familiar with merit pay proposals aim to measure teacher performance by a simple metric. You take a classroom of students and you look at their test scores at the beginning of the year. So for example, you might have a room full of third graders who test at the first grade level -- in other words a classroom full of low IQ kids. Next, you test them at the end of the year -- have they made progress? You then compare apples to apples -- are there other classrooms of third graders who tested at the first grade level and how did they do? Compare and contrast and the teachers that did the best -- reward them. To make the analysis more sophisticated, factor in other demographic characteristics (e.g. how many kids came from two parent homes, how many were black, etc., etc.) Crunch some numbers and do this for a couple of years and my guess is the data will highlight some teaching stars, some teachers who are doing fine, and some teachers who are really screwing up. Fire the screw ups, reward the stars, but cut everyone's pensions and health benefits because the system can't afford it. Plus fire half of the central office staff (if not more) and preferrably transform the entire system into a parent-driven voucher system. But I'm really getting off topic now...

Maximos, yesterday at 9:48 p.m.: sorry, I meant "interesting as in interesting." In fact, I think you're probably right. But it's hard to be sure.

Jeff Singer: I haven't stepped in because I've found the discussion quite interesting. I was going to quote, with strong approval, the very same passage from Maximos that you just did. But I must admit that your response seems like a pretty good one. On the other hand, I do have worries about evaluating teachers based on improvements in standardized test-scores. When I was teaching remedial math in the Virginia public schools, I worked out a whole system for raising student scores on the state's "Standards of Learning" (S.O.L. (!)) algebra & geometry tests. I made a careful study of past tests, figured out what all the easiest type questions that showed up every year would be, and then spent the year drilling my kids on the same. The result was a highly reliable rise in standardized test scores - but it had little or nothing to do with actually teaching anybody algebra or geometry.

Lydia - I made several strenuous efforts to get a job teaching in a private school. Take it from me: they're not interested in Philosophy Ph.D.'s - not even from top-notch analytic departments. Same goes for the public schools. The only reason *they* gave me a try was because of my experience teaching S.A.T. prep.

You take a classroom of students and you look at their test scores at the beginning of the year....

I have no faith that this sort of thing results in actual improvements, for reasons Steve explains quite nicely. NCLB has had a similar effect: teaching to the test, which is not the same thing, not by a longshot, as actual comprehension.

Well, Steve, they should be interested. I do have one friend who is very happy teaching at an upscale prep school in Dallas, I believe, with a doctorate from Wayne State. It should be more common. But I brought up the example only to say that, yes, nowadays because of the economy, in a free market situation, a lot of good teachers could well be underpaid (if that word has any meaning, which I rather doubt), but under the right circumstances the philosophers might be happy for the jobs and the schools might get a good deal in the philosophers, and therefore everyone would be better off regardless of the relatively low salaries.

can speak from experience to the effect that it is _not_ true that merit pay for college educators is tied (at least not in the fully-politically-correct state institution I'm familiar with) to their ability to educate minorities to the same status as other students. I'm sure the administrators would like that, but there are plenty of other ways to get merit pay when there is merit pay, which there hasn't been for several years now.

Most merit pay in the sciences is related to publication and grants, not teaching. In the humanities, teaching is more important.

I, too, have taught 7/8 grade math (at a private Catholic school). The administration backed me 100% and I had no slackers in my class. They were all good kids and well-behaved. Almost everyone passed the eighth-grade profficiency (85%?). Of course, I delivered one class entirely in different accents each ten minutes and in another class, I had the students execute a computer program using them as the bits of data. One cannot be so creative in a public school.

This school also would not let students use calculators (yea!), so I got to teach them many trick of calculations.

The situation in science/math education in public schools is depressing at best. Where I live, they are begging for science teachers. I don't have a teaching license, so I cannot teach in public schools (not that I would want to). I have tried to explain to the state education department that there is no research proving that a teaching license produces better teachers than those without one> I also pointed out that since I am qualified to teach college-level education courses in music, why shouold it be the case that I can train the teachers, but then not be able to go into the classroom, myself, and teach the high school students what I taught their teachers to teach.

In both cases, they more or less ignored my arguments. They responded with, "A person might have a great knowledge base, but be unable to teach." This totally ignored my first argument, since a license does not make a good teacher. It also ignored my second argument, since their own teachers could, conceivably, learn how to teach from me.

The whole mess of middle-school/high school education was lost when the schools became dependent on state/federal funding, in my opinion. Communities should, in a perfect world, support their education systems because they see the need for it. State lotteries are coercive.

It used to be that higher education (beyond eighth-grade) was a privilege. When it ceased to be that and became an entitlement, we lost the game.

One problem with education is the Department of Education. Why does it exist? It didn't until the 80s, and doesn't appear to have done any good at all in the 30 years it's been around. Which brings us to another question: is it possible to just put an end to a federal department?

Returning education to local or regional control wouldn't automatically fix it, but it wouldn't hurt.

In ye olden days the "unders" did sit side by side with the "overs". It didn't seem to be a problem. If in fact an "over" had particular talents there were venues for them. Other then that, side by side.
It must always be remembered that the public school system is run for the benefit of the teachers and various lard asses who spend their shadowy lives lurking in the dark of busywork, & planning for the next budget increase.
The tracking system, Iowa tests, etc, were designed for the separation of students & for the benefit of our professional educators, those brain impaired who survived educational colleges, the four year prison camps for the malformed.

Tracking enabled our career misfits to teach to homogenized groupings, the better students a pleasure, though like everything else it interfered with the full time occupation of professional self pity, & the "unders", an exercise in thumb twirling and mental anemia.

The point being & in addition to above, the schools are & will remain a mess. Today the unchanging essence is the constant of blundering, the sausage grinder of an arrogant careerism, the protection of those who ought not & don't deserve to be protected
Samuel Johnson said " the prospect of a hanging concentrates a man's mind". I'd settle for the prospect of an occasional firing, that & the bulldozing of a few educational colleges.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):